Skip to main content
5:00 pm
coming back before you as a new permit because they also took to the board of supervisors on the basis that the design at that time, is not okay for a historic building because this is a voting by -. what we have done now after talking to the staff after it was appealed the project sponsor decided to eliminate all of the bay windows facing 7th avenue that was approved. on top of that they also otherwise if you look at the - this plan. all of this in color where the
5:01 pm
additions have been widow - taken away. the top floor envelope is also the same as approved by this commission. in addition to this because they didn't want a roof-deck and - because they wanted the open space and this commission actually approved of the new - because of their objection that was eliminated and now it's a mechanical. as far as the staircase gol up it is the existing volume of the house.
5:02 pm
nothing was extended it's going to be basically glass so that there will be a lot of looithd to the staircase going down to the combrv. so we removed the decking and we're trying to keep everything in the envelope okay. because of a prices issue the project sponsor decided that three years ago they decided not to - there was no door going out to the deck they had to walk through the window to clean the drapes and whatnot.
5:03 pm
there is really no issue left so far as the sun light is concerned this building is north of the area so there's no stood going to be cast on her side. stereos this building for this gentleman is concerned the new top floor is a glass box. it's going to be very difficult to me to imagine how this dallas box is going to create shadow on - new shadow on this jazz building. the rest of the air is going - is the staircase but it's
5:04 pm
existing. so if you have any question i'll be modern happy to answer >> thank you. speakers in support of the sponsors? >> hi. i'm a neighbor i'm in support of these two people. it's a lovely home they'd like to make it more but have. they've been trying to make changes. as their neighbors at 299 lake street we'd welcome the
5:05 pm
improvements. these two people have turned their former home into thrift house they're very active on our street and they come in transcribe to our neighborhood. please let my friends get on with they're living. >> thank you any additional speakers. sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal >> all i have to summarize is the points in that i believe those requests are reasonable. cut down a one hundred and 5
5:06 pm
square feet and that would be very reasonable. that's all i have to say. >> thank you and i would like to add that the floor that was approved by this commission was - includes the neighborhood association excuse me. . and also this friend was - the building envelope was reduced by pulling away from the edge of the building and creating a
5:07 pm
place in the back the south east korean so there is no blockage of sun light. and finally, one item they talked about is the parking lot space. the way it is now it say, i think it's exactly the same >> thank you. it's now closed >> i want to understand this a little bit. so we approved a more aggressive view of this version and addition and now we're seeing a not so aggressive
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
>> thank you. i personally think that having been one of the people that voted for the last project that was actually bigger, i don't see why it's extraordinary now to have a project that's less intense. this case has been around for a super long time. not sure exactly everything that's been going on in the community and i'm surprised the kings even hold on to the property at this point. from my stand point, i don't see what's exceptional and extraordinary. we're preserving the building in a better way initially. for that seems to me not to be a problem.
5:11 pm
>> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with the commissioner and board and i remember this case. i seem to think what we approved looked pretty good. i remember the bays being pretty contextual. i've seen that happen on many projects. they want something that doesn't look like it's part of building. i'm hoping this addition will be with the existing structure. seems to be what i can tell from the plan. i don't really see impact. i see no impacts to the d.r. request building. they raise the number of points. there were deed restrictions seem to be in compliant with
5:12 pm
that. the privacy issue is not an issue. i don't really see impact for light and air. he did mention impact from the neighbor across the street. it would seem like these impacts are fairly minor and they were probably less than was the case with the other addition. i know that there were these request for no roof, deck and i have no reason why the width of the stairs have anything to do with anything. why it matters, why the stairs are going up there. the pair pits are design features not just features for fire prevention but also sometimes parapit will hide some ugly elements on the roof that will be seen. otherwise if it wasn't for the
5:13 pm
parapits, sometimes the parapits hide some of the -- this is more for commercial building. i really don't see too much here. project sponsor, maybe i can ask project sponsor attorney. there were a couple things they brought up about the movement part of the up stair addition away from 32nd avenue. i would cut some of the shadowing to the neighbors across the street. can it be known? >> not across the street right now, it's already -- the distance between the two houses is about eight feet or so.
5:14 pm
we already setting back the top edge of it. the project building is actually north of the d.r. request. >> that part i know. i know there's no impact there. what i was talking more about, i think the neighbors across the street -- >> across the street? >> it's next door. >> that would not have any impact either for the simple reason if you look at the floor plan, that whole front front is all glass. the portion that have a solid wall next to it, that's part of the already in that location was part of the existing staircase that go up.
5:15 pm
this building was originally designed to accept four floor. that's why we have this large staircase in the existing plan that goes up to the roof. >> my fault thinking impact someone on the north side helped me. it's not, it's actually to the southeast. >> also, i just like to add that in this discussion with the planning department, when the roof got changed through mechanical, there were some discussion about a fact that they would like to see some sort of parapit screen and the mechanical equipment up there >> that's what i was thinking the reason for it. >> commissioner hillis. >> i was going to ask you about the parapit. is that the reason for it? i don't see the mechanical? >> yes, there will be mechanical
5:16 pm
equipment on that roof. part of it, we had shown the height of the solar panel very high. it would probably be lower than that but the angle would have to be decided by the installer to make sure that we get the maximum out of the solar panel. then also, they may very well be -- some are getting harder and harder, there will be a cooler or something like that on top. >> thank you >> commissioner. >> i know we have one more. i think there's nothing extraordinary exceptional. i'll make a motion. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i think the proposed alterations are very much in
5:17 pm
line with style being understated, california shingles style. i think it's very appropriate to do the expansion on top. only thing i would ask have we thought up bird friendly footing or what might be required since we're so close to the ocean? >> thanks commissioner moore. it's the plans don't already show the bird friendly glass, we'll make sure they do. they will need to by code. >> because you're in a area that requires that anyway is that correct? >> believe so. >> you would pay attention to that, i appreciate that. >> correct. >> thank you, >> commissioner on the motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. commissioner antonini, borden,
5:18 pm
moore, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> happy new year to everyone. today is my first day back at city hall. i didn't see the agenda. i'm on way to human rights commission. let me state the purpose i'm here for. because of our pass supervisor, kristina, she last month or so, she request a public hearing be on planning commission, o.e.w.d. and the oversight committee as it relate, fillmore, a 2 area.
5:19 pm
i'm here stating purpose that aisle looking forward for this public hearing come up. we have a new supervisor, you call her queen b., which is london b. from the community. i look forward to coming to this commission. you guys got three minutes too, that's good. hoping we can work out some things. this request basically going back to history of redevelopment agency and seeing what they call urban renewal the effects happening in our community. ladies and gentlemen, the story is drastic. i'm speaking as an african-american here i am now 2013, after all of these years at city hall, my vision is so
5:20 pm
clear, there was a effort on getting rid of the african-american community, not your fault, history speaks to itself. the studies in the last 20 years shows the redevelopment. i'm proposing there will be a projection ten years in the future seeing where african-americans will be at. we will not be around. all the planning city has in the next ten years, the trajectory in my book shows rough grim for the african-american community. you will be seeing me in a lot of capacities. anyway, i thought i stop by let my presence known. we'll have a committee. >> thank you. any further public comment?
5:21 pm
meeting is adjourned.
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm

January 24, 2013 5:00pm-5:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Moore 3, Antonini 2, Dallas 1, Borden 1, California 1, City 1, City Hall 1, Hillis 1, London 1, Fillmore 1, Kristina 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color